1 2025:CGHC:38402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1399 of 2025 1 - Smt. Anju Diwan W/o Late Vinay Dhar Diwan Aged About 46 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 16, Hotel Diwan Inn Opposite Old Civil Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. 2 - Pratham Dhar Diwan S/o Late Vinay Dhar Diwan Aged About 23 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 16, Hotel Diwan Inn Opposite Old Civil Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Special Police Station (Scheduled Castes Welfare) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 04/08/2025 1. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.05 15:22:36 +0530 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in B.P. No.513/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.5/2025 registered at Special Police Station (Scheduled Castes’ Welfare) Janjgir, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 324, 329(3) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(g), 3(2)(5), 3(1)(m)(n) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.06.2025, at 7:52 Pm, the complainant, Gautam Kuldeep, submitted a written report to the Ajak Police Station in Janjgir stating that on 06.06.2025, he had sent his younger brother, Deepak Kuldeep, to oversee the construction of a boundary wall on their private land. While the complainant was away on personal work in Janjgir, he returned and visited the construction site. At about 3:00 PM, he and his brother, Kishore Kuldeep, saw Anju Diwan and her son, Pratham Diwan, leaving the site in a car. Upon inspection, they found that the ongoing boundary wall construction had been demolished, and Deepak Kuldeep and the laborers were not present. Later, Deepak Kuldeep arrived at the site, visibly shaken, and informed them that while the laborers were working on the boundary wall, Anju Diwan, Pratham Diwan, and 12-15 other individuals arrived at the site, abused them using filthy language, and threatened to kill them, using caste-based slurs. They allegedly chased the laborers and Deepak Kuldeep, who barely escaped. The complainant claims 3 that the demolition of the boundary wall resulted in financial losses amounting to Rs. 1,11,100. He alleges that Anju Diwan and her son, Pratham Diwan, have been repeatedly and forcibly demolishing the construction on his private land, causing him financial and mental harassment, and humiliation. Based on the said report, offence has been registered against the present appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case due to civil dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that there was an ancestral land in Village Kirari, recorded in the name of Vinay Dhar Diwan (Pratham Dhar's grandfather) and some land was sold to Gautam Kuldeep, but possession wasn't handed over due to joint holding and when Gautam Kuldeep started constructing a boundary wall, the applicants objected, citing it was on their land. He further submitted that a civil suit (No. 666/2025) is pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Akaltara, seeking declaration of the sale deed as null and void and permanent injunction. He further submits that the bail application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. However, the case under the Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out as there is no averment regarding the caste in the FIR as well as in the statement and therefore, anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the matter of Sudama 4 Mahto vs. The State of Bihar, passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) 482 of 2021 on 10.03.2022 and in the matter of Bheema vs. State of Karnataka, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 200239 of 2021 on 20.12.2021. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail, submitting that the complainant is the rightful owner and possessor of 2.16 acres of agricultural land in Gram Kirari, Janjgir Champa, having purchased it through registered sale deeds dated 10.05.2012, and 23.05.2012, from the late Vinay Dhar Diwan (husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2). The applicants have allegedly harassed and insulted the complainant, using their influence to forcibly restrain him from using his land since 2018, including demolishing boundary walls, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail considering grievousness of the offence and the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants, submitting that the civil suit was filed subsequent to the registration of the FIR. It is alleged that the appellants used caste-based abuses and demolished the construction on the complainant's land. Given the gravity of the offense, it is prayed that the appellants may not be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 7. Upon examination of the material on record and the impugned order, it is evident that a named FIR has been registered against the applicants, which specifically mentions caste-based allegations. Consequently, the trial court's rejection of the anticipatory bail application on this ground is deemed proper. Considering the entirety of the case's facts and circumstances, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, as well as the material collected and available on record against the applicants, this Court finds no illegality in the trial court's order. The cited case laws do not support the grant of anticipatory bail in this instance. Therefore, this Court upholds the trial court's decision to reject the anticipatory bail application. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.